Skip to main content

Full text of "USA v. Aaron Swartz - Criminal Document #14"

See other formats


Case 1 :1 1 -cr-1 0260-NMG Document 1 4 Filed 09/07/1 1 Page 1 of 4 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA 

v. | CRIMINAL No. 11-CR-10260-NMG 

AARON SWARTZ, 

Defendant. 



JOINT MEMORANDUM FOR INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE 
The parties submit this joint memorandum addressing the issues set out in Local Rule 
116.5(A). 

(1) Relief from Rule 116.3 - Discovery Motion Practice 

The parties request relief from the schedule set out in Local Rule 116.3 in view of the parties' 
dispute concerning a protective order. 

(2) Expert witness discovery 

The government anticipates offering expert witness testimony in the areas of computer 
networks, computer network security, computer programming, computer forensics, records created 
by computers and attempts to breach computer network security measures. The defendant requests 
discovery concerning expert witnesses. The parties disagree on what dates should be established for 
expert disclosure and whether the dates should be the same for both parties. 

(3) Additional discovery 

The government has initiated automatic discovery required under the Local Rules but has 
conditioned providing some of this discovery subject to entry of a protective order, the terms of 



Case 1:11 -cr-10260-NMG Document 14 Filed 09/07/1 1 Page 2 of 4 

which the parties are currently negotiating. If the parties cannot reach agreement, the government 
will file a motion for a protective order and the defendant will file a motion to compel disclosure in 
the absence of a protective order or proposing different terms for a protective order. The parties' 
cross-motions will be no later than two weeks after the September 9, 2011 status conference. 

Defense counsel will need more time to review the material already provided and the material 
that will be provided after entry of a protective order. The government anticipates obtaining other 
discoverable items and will provide them to defense counsel or make them available for inspection 
when available. 

(4) Motion date 

The government contends that a protective order is appropriate in this case. The parties have 
not yet determined whether they can agree on the terms of a protective order or whether this issue 
will need to be litigated. The parties request that the Court order the parties' cross-motions for a 
protective order and to compel discovery be filed no later than two weeks after the September 9 th 
status conference, and set the motions for hearing four weeks after the status conference. 

The parties request that the Court schedule an interim status conference, at which the Court 
would establish the date by which Defendant would be required to file any motions to dismiss the 
indictment or to suppress evidence. 

(5) Excludable delay 

The parties ask the Court to grant the government's previously-filed motion to exclude the 
time from August 16, 2011, through September 9, 2011, and to exclude this time and the time from 
the date of the Initial Status Conference to an interim status conference under the Speedy Trial Act, 
18 U.S.C. ยง 3161(h)(7)(A), for the parties to negotiate a protective order, and for Defendant Swartz 



Case 1:11 -cr-10260-NMG Document 14 Filed 09/07/1 1 Page 3 of 4 

to review discovery, investigate possible defenses, and evaluate the need for pre-trial motions. The 
ends of justice served by this exclusion would outweigh the best interest of the public and the 
defendant in a speedy trial. 

(6) Trial likelihood and length : 

The parties anticipate that there will be a trial and that it will take approximately two weeks, 
but will likely take longer if the parties are unable to work out trial stipulations and if Defendant 
Swartz puts on any witnesses in his defense. 

(7) Interim status conference : 

The parties ask the Court to schedule an interim status conference during the week of October 

3, 2011. 

Respectfully submitted, 

CARMEN M. ORTIZ 
United States Attorney 



By: /s/ Scott L. Garland 
Stephen P. Heymann 
Scott L. Garland 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys 



Andrew Good, Esq. 

Counsel for Defendant Aaron Swartz 



/s/ Andrew Good by slg 
Andrew Good, Esq. 
Good and Cormier 



Date: September 7, 2011 



Case 1:11 -cr-10260-NMG Document 14 Filed 09/07/1 1 Page 4 of 4 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that this document is being filed through the ECF system and will therefore 
be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing. 



Is/ Scott L. Garland 



Scott L. Garland 

Assistant United States Attorney 



Date: September 7, 2011